Recent Headlines

SAN ANTONIO — There exists an immunity for state legislators from liability and from testifying. This is present in federal common law. On this much, the parties in the state's ongoing redistricting litigation appear to agree.

The question is, how broad is the immunity?

In arguing for the federal court in San Antonio to modify its previous order on this issue, the Texas attorney general's office would have us believe that the law makes this immunity broad beyond reason.

Essentially, it would have Texans believe that public servants need not make public what went into the creation of public policy — even in a court case.

In that previous court order on immunity, legislators could be deposed and could invoke legislative immunity but have to answer the questions anyway — with the depositions then placed under seal for court review.

Now, since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling returned challenges to the state's redistricting maps to the lower court here, Texas argues that matters have changed and the order should be modified.

It asks that legislators who hadn't previously waived privilege and new legislative witnesses be able to keep their mouths shut.

The court's first order was bending over backward. What the state attorney general is now seeking is for the court to go into contortions to shield legislators from revealing what they know.

The state argues that the previous order occurred because of the necessity for speed and that enough time now exists for the court to settle disputes should they arise.

And what we sense is a stall and an attempt to wear down the court, time consumed on what can be heard and read as testimony as opposed to getting to the nut of the case: namely, whether Texas' redistricting maps discriminate. A previous court said the congressional and state House maps did — transparently so.

And this sort of finding is what the state attorney general fears will happen again.

But it's puzzling how the court arrives at a conclusion on discrimination if it can't access the innermost workings — and intent — of the Legislature.

It's relatively easy to understand why legislators shouldn't be personally liable for damages when their decisions are challenged in court. This could have a chilling effect on deliberations and meaningful policy. Making absolutely no sense is this same kind of immunity for legislators from providing evidence in court cases.

Privilege must be weighed against the interest in getting to the truth. This is essentially what the plaintiffs are arguing. And they argue that the basic circumstances of this case haven't changed.

They are right.

They are still claiming discrimination in these maps — that the maps dilute the voting power of the minorities who accounted for nearly 90 percent of the state's growth between 2000 and 2010. They are simply using a different section of the Voting Rights Act in their claims.

This population growth gained the state four new congressional seats. The Legislature's 2011 maps did not reflect this growth and the 2013 maps — approved in special session simply so that the attorney general could say matters have changed and the plaintiff's claims, therefore, are moot — are simply cheap knock-offs.

In the last go-around, it turns out that no legislator claimed privilege. If any lawmaker had, the public would have had a right to ask why.

So, in this latest round, what is it that the attorney general's office doesn't want us to know about how and why legislators crafted these maps?

Could it be that the maps were created and approved with full knowledge of whom these maps would keep in power and at which groups' expense?

Embarrassing stuff said and written during the process, pointing to purposeful discrimination? So, quit doing that. Problem solved.

Given the state's history on voter discrimination, the reluctance to be this forthcoming merely points to insidious maneuvering. The court — and the public — have a right to know.